9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to take cenvat credit of the additional amounts of duty paid on the same goods by the supplier under the supplementary invoices. In any case it was not in dispute that the inputs were received in the appellant’s factory. The substantive requirement of cenvat credit were thus met by the party. The benefit was not liable to be denied on procedural grounds. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Ex.Appeal No.75/12 - FO/76435/2018 - Dated:- 15-5-2018 - SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAY KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Dr.Samir Chakraborty, Sr.Advocate and Shri Abhijit Biswas, Adv. for the Appellant (s) Shri D. Haldar, Asstt.Commr. (AR) for the Revenue (s) ORDER Per Shri P. K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments as per Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Show-cause notice proposed disallowance and recovery of alleged wrongly availed cenvat credit along with interest and also imposition of penalty. The Adjudicating Authority disallowed the cenvat credit availed and utilized on the supplementary invoices and demanded of ₹ 58,61,881/- along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount under Rule 15 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence the present appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The ld.Sr.Advocate, Dr.Samir Chakraborty, appearing on behalf of the appellants, reiterated the grounds of appeal and submitted a compilation of statutory provisions and case laws. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He relied upon the following decisions in support of his submission : (i) EBG IndiaPvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE : 2009 (240) ELT 317 (T) ; (ii) Diamond Cements Vs. CCE :2017 (52) STR 164 (T) ; (iii) Delphi Automotive System Vs.CCE :2016 (46) STR 369 (T) ; (iv) CCE Vs. Navkar Wires (P) Ltd. : 2006 (205) ELT 308 (T). The ld.Sr.Advocate for the appellants has filed a copy of the Order-in-Appeal No.37/JSR/2013 dated 25.02.2013, wherein the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) in the appellants own case, for the subsequent period, has allowed the appeal holding that the duty amount paid second time by the manufacturer is legitimate right of the appellant-assessee for availment of benefit. 4. The ld.D.R. ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.No.XAP-02/JSR/2013 APPELLANTS : M/s Pushkar Techno Pvt. ltd., 48B, Phase-I, Industrial Area, Adityapur, Jamshepur-832109. RESPONDENT : Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Service Tax Division-III. Jamshedpur. APPEARANCES : Appellant Sri K. N. Ramanathan, Advocate Respondent None ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL NO. 56-MP/OFFENCE/2012 DATED 23.08.2012 ORDER-IN-APPEAL NO. 37/JSR/2013 DATED 25/02/2013 1. The Appellant allegedly, have wrongly availed and utilized Cenvat Credit amounting to ₹ 262464/- only on HR and CR sheets on the basis of supplementary invoices, issued by M/s Tata Ryerson ltd Bara Agrico, Jamshedpur a dealer, which are not eligible documents to availe credit in terms of Rule 9 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through such supplementary invoice is with reference to duty paid on inputs initially cleared hence the credit can be availed legally on such supplementary invoices. This observation gets support from the decision of Hon ble Tribunal in case of CCE Indore Vs. Navkar Wires (P) Ltd. -2006 (205) E.L.T. 308, relevant para is reproduced as under- 5. I find that the invoices which are issued by the first stave dealer to the respondents are an invoice issued under Rule 7. These invoices have been issued on the basis of the additional duty paid by the manufacturer at his end to the Govt. It is not in dispute that the respondents had procured the goods from the first stage dealer and part of the duty as paid earlier was also allowed as a credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
